“Thomas, I will not have you killed, leaving me with our son James all alone to raise. He is not even two years old. You can’t do this. It isn’t fair” yelled 19 year old Elizabeth White to her husband. Thomas White, 15 years Elizabeth’s senior, was dumb struck by his wife’s angry terror. He looked down at her red face and trembling hands as young James sat on the floor staring in silence.

“But Elizabeth, it was you who were so angry that the British flooded Boston with the cheap tea that is driving our own local merchants to ruin. It was you who said they had to be stopped. I thought you would be proud of me, not angry.”

“I know what I said, Thomas” Elizabeth replied in a calmer voice. “But you know I never thought that would mean you would risk your life by sneaking aboard their ships and throwing their bloody tea into the harbor. It has been barely four years ago that young Edward Garrick cursed at the British soldier and they responded by massacring five of our neighbors at the Customs House in broad daylight. What do you think they will do to you if they catch you destroying their precious tea?”

“Elizabeth, I do love you and James so. But I have made a pact with Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty. This is an act we must take. It is either we act now or it gets worse later. I cannot allow the British to dictate every aspect of our lives. They spy, lie, steal, kidnap or whatever they need to do to hold power over us. I cannot….NO….I will not let our son be raised as a second class citizen.”

Thomas White and Elizabeth (Jones) White are my 4th Great Grandparents. History does not record whether or not that exact conversation occurred between Thomas and Elizabeth before the Boston Tea Party took place on the evening of December 16, 1773. However, if those exact words were not exchanged, I am convinced something very close to them was.

I do know that Thomas White was a member of the Sons of Liberty, led by Samuel Adams and Paul Revere, and that he was a participant in the Boston Tea Party. I know that he served in the Continental Army in the Second Pennsylvania Regiment before, during and after the Revolutionary War. I also know that this inscription is on the monument that marks his and Elizabeth’s final resting place;

"IN MEMORIUM OF THOMAS WHITE
ONE OF THE BRAVE HEROES
OF THE BOSTON TEA PARTY, DEC. 16, 1773,
AND A REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER AND PATRIOT FOR AMERICAN INDEPENDANCE,
WAS BORN
IN IRELAND, MARCH 19, 1739,
DIED SEPT. 13, 1820,
AGED 81 Y'RS, 5 MO'S, 24 DAYS

-=*=-

SOLDIER, REST! THY WARFARE
O'ER DREAM OF FIGHTING FIELDS NO MORE.
HOW SLEEP THE BRAVE WHO
SINK TO REST,
BY ALL THEIR COUNTRY'S
WISHES BLEST."

The right to be free from government intrusion into our lives as citizens is not just something I believe in. It is, I am humbly proud to say, my heritage.

The Patriot Act causes a visceral reaction deep within me. Not just because of some of the alarming provisions contained within it, but more because of the name. I suspect the authors intentionally used the name “Patriot Act” to conjure up the tag of disloyalty if others opposed its onerous provisions. The authors knew they could not appeal to our reason, therefore, they settled for appealing to our fears. I suspect Thomas White, one the original true Patriots, would have reacted much as I have.

Within this current national atmosphere the Portland City Council must decide whether or not to approve a memorandum of agreement for the next year that causes the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) to assign two full time Portland Police Officers to the so called Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) and join forces with the FBI to investigate possible terrorists amongst us.

I have posted my position on the JTTF before here and here. However, I want to go into a little more depth in this piece as to my reasons for not supporting the PPB participating in the JTTF.

Some have questioned my patriotism for the position I have taken. I have found that ironic given that I believe that through my vote I am attempting to adhere to the principles Thomas White and his fellow Patriots fought for in the American War of Independence. That is, a government that exists only to serve the people through its elected representatives. A government that respects the freedom of its citizens to assemble, speak freely and practice the religion of their choosing….or not.

While the role of the federal government being in charge of the JTTF has dominated the debate so far, suffice it to say that some in the command structure of the Portland Police Bureau have shown me in the past year that I would be foolish to accept on faith that they are committed to making sure that individual civil rights will be respected without effective oversight by the Mayor. Therefore, I will not support any agreement to participate in the JTTF that does not give at least the Mayor -if not those Commissioners that ask for it- the same security clearance as the officers assigned to the JTTF.

Since becoming a member of the Portland City Council, I have become concerned that there has not been effective oversight of the Portland Police Bureau. I also believe that is about to change….dramatically. That is a very good thing.

However, I also know that the PPB not participating in the JTTF does not hamper our ability one bit to investigate true threats to our citizen’s need to be secure. If the FBI wants the assistance of the PPB in an investigation, they need only request assistance from the Mayor’s office and, assuming the request is based on a real need, the Mayor will assign as many Portland Police Officers as is required to deal with a legitimate investigation.

I also think that it is not an unhealthy thing to have clear lines of delineation between our local police and the federal police. While both entities should cooperate to the extent possible, our local police should be more in tune with our community and its specific concerns. In instances where the federal police may cross over the civil rights line, I would aspire to a time when our police would call the feds on that. Again and unfortunately, my experience with some in the command structure of the PPB leads me to believe that would not happen today.

I know what I write here will not sit well with some in our community nor within the PPB. I am sorry about that. However, I say what I do and will vote the way I have indicated only because of the rights afforded to us as American citizens by those who fought and died in all of America's wars to secure for us those rights.

Do not be sorry for your stance on this issue or issues with individuals, groups of individuals or the Police department. Thank you for spending time over the holidays reflecting this critical issue and letting "us" citizens read your reasoning for the way that you will vote on this issue.

Thank you for taking this position Commissioner Leonard but more importantly, thank you for explaining it with us.

The finest moments in Blue Oregon (the site and the state) are when elected officials openly and honestly explaining their positions on controversial issues and take the public through the thought process in which the position was derived.

Hopefully more elected officials show the integrity that Commissioner Leonard has shown by following his example and promoting an open public discourse.

I approve of both the decision and the rationale. The strength of our committment to liberty is shown in the way we rely on it, despite crises that suggest tempering or even abandoning it. Thanks Randy.

It is welcome whenever an elected official takes a stand in favor of civil liberties and due process. Right now it is especially important, given our creep toward a police state. Of course, it is also expecially politically risky right now, because of all the fear whipped up by the Shrubbery and their toadies.

National security should be taken seriously. That is not what is happening with gang now running the US. These neocons have adopted 1984 as their utopia, and they're pushing as if the police state is 20 years behind schedule.

So now it's the Patriot Act? I went back and looked at your earlier reasoniong which I re-posted below.
At that time you were concerned about the cost, chain of command and a wasteful investigation of the selling of Rubik Cubes at Pufferbelly Toys in St. Helen's. Something which the Patriot Act had nothing to do with.

If you are concerned about the Patriot Act and our losing our civil rights can you please detail some specific examples of which rights we lose (and how) due to the Patriot Act?

Randy earlier post
"My concerns with the JTTF pact are three.

First, the Feds are spending hundreds of billions of dollars fighting “terror”. I don’t consider it unreasonable, given the city’s financially strapped condition, to ask the Feds to reimburse the city for the cost of the two full time officers assigned to the JTTF. Were I negotiating the agreement, and I’m not, I would make that a condition of our participation.

I consider that fiscally prudent policy.

Second, in the vote that I made a year ago renewing our participation in the JTTF I said my yes vote was contingent upon the Mayor and Police Chief receiving the necessary security clearance to adequately supervise our officers assigned to the JTTF. According to Chief Foxworth, he and the Mayor have "secret" security clearances while the officers assigned to the JTTF have "top secret" security clearances. In other words, we have two Portland Police Officers who are involved in activities that neither the Police Chief nor the Mayor to be briefed on.

Why Chief Foxworth and the Mayor are OK with that will be the subject of another post at some time in the future. For now, let me just say that I consider that irresponsible management.

Third, we all read that the Feds who were identified as agents from the Department of Homeland Security conducted an investigation of the selling of Rubik Cubes at Pufferbelly Toys in St. Helen's."""

Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.

Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.

Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

Combine that with the ACLU of Oregon talking points on JTTFs -- which includes a list of abuses elsewhere in the country -- and you tell me why the City of Portland should participate in the local Task Force when we don't even have sufficient means of knowing whether or not our local officers are being used to do any of these things here.

Steve-
In fact, I linked to the comments in this post that you quoted in your comment. What I wrote in my post here was complimentary to and in addition to earlier concerns I have posted relative to the JTTF.

When the FBI had credible information generated from it's own agents before Sept. 11, 2001 that there were men taking suspicious flying lessons that caused an Arizona FBI agent to believe something sinister may be brewing, he was ignored. Mind you, that was pre-Patriot Act. Had the FBI in Washington listened to it's own agents in the field, we probably would have stopped Sept 11, 2001 from happening. The so called "Patriot Act" would not have been shoved through Congress and George Bush would be back on the ranch in Texas clearing brush.

Now, the Office of Homeland Security is sending Agents to St. Helens, Oregon to investigate the sale of Rubik Cubes at a Toy Store? And you think we ought to join in the hysteria which includes the right to monitor which books we read at the library instead of telling some FBI administrators in Washington to pull their collective heads out of their asses and pay attention to their able agents in the field?

If there is an intelligence gathering problem that needs to be corrected it is within the ranks of the leaders of intelligence gathering organizations....not "skirting" or "ignoring" rights the founders of this country and soldiers in all wars fought and died for. The Patriot Act was passed in an attempt to make the American People the scape goat to diffuse attention from the incompetence of our national intelligence gathering community. Period.

If you can't at least concede that point, we really have no basis for any kind of a meaningful discussion on this topic.

As far as I can tell, If George Bush would have read his briefing book while vacationing in Texas the entire month of August, 2001 and/or if his command structure at the FBI were reading the reports of their agents out in the field, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I would push further--I hope you will be able to convince Cmmr Adams and Saltzman and Myr Potter on this very critical issue.

I say to John--what other positions are there available for Cmmr Leonard too go for..County Cmmr(yes in 4 yrs Cmmr Roberts is termed out) or Chair(that would be most intereting); Labor Cmmr.(what Dan going somewhere?; SecSt.(this post doesnt fit Randy), Mayor(lets see about Potter), Congressman(what Earl going somewhere?) Federal Senator(that would be a solid challange) and the Governor(oh please Randy say that you would take a stab at it).

I have't seen any indication in press reports on this that Saltzman is anything other than a "yes" vote. And one paper said simply that Potter supports the work of the JTTF, while another said his view depends upon obtaining clearance.

Randy opines,
"""The Patriot Act was passed in an attempt to make the American People the scape goat to diffuse attention from the incompetence of our national intelligence gathering community. Period.
If you can't at least concede that point, we really have no basis for any kind of a meaningful discussion on this topic."""

Is this progressive?
If I can't agree with you then we can't have any meaningful discussion????

What if you are wrong?

Who told you that was the motive behind the Patriot Act?

Describe how you came to conclude such a notion?

Mr. Leonard, your view of the Patriot Act is off base.
Perhaps if you boned up a bit with someone familiar with the Act like former FBI Special Agent Charles Mathews you might discover a fresh and more accurate perspective.

If you need his contact info let me know.
I'll pass on to him your comments.
I can tell you that having heard a presentation by Mr. Mathews, covering all of the misinformation out there, what you are preaching is flat out inaccurate.

I think it is in your best interests and certainly the public's best interests for you to broaden your comprehension on this very important issue.

Regardless of how many Bluebloggers love what you are currently doing.

I say to John--what other positions are there available for Cmmr Leonard to go for?

W/o getting too much off topic, that's not up to anybody but Commissioner Leonard, although it's no secret that I desperately want to see Gordon Smith get hammered in his next run for the Senate. If Earl takes a shot at it, that leaves his Congressional seat open. If he doesn't, ...

As for the Patriot Act, all you have to do is read it to get the perspective you need on it, and I suspect Commissioner Leonard has done that.

It's not about how one Special Agent interprets the Act, nor is it about how many Federal Law Enforcement officials swear up and down that they couldn't conceive of a situation in which they'd use whatever clause, it's about what the Act empowers Federal Law Enforcement to do.

And in comparison to what Federal Law Enforcement has done with it (one conviction off the 9/11 terrorist act; several false arrests; etc.), it's not worth the liberty we have to sacrifice for it.

To paraphrase another True Patriot: those who would sacrifice a little liberty for more security, are idiots.

It's not about how one Special Agent interprets the Act, nor is it about how many Federal Law Enforcement officials swear up and down that they couldn't conceive of a situation in which they'd use whatever clause, it's about what the Act empowers Federal Law Enforcement to do.

Exactly. Given that we are meant to be a nation of laws, not of men, legislation is supposed to avoid granting either abusive powers or powers which contain great potential for abuse. The problem with much of the pro-Act rhetoric is that it amounts to reporting that one or another representative of law enforcement has said either (1) that the Act does not enable potential abuses or (2) they would never take advantage of any possibility for abuse.

That's not how it's supposed to work. Trust the law, not the men. As law, the PATRIOT Act is not worth our trust.

As a life-long registered Republican and a Son of the American Revolution, I'm proud that Randy has the opportunity to express his views.

I also fear that the soi-disant 'Patriot Act' and other deceptively named legislation are abusing the social contract between the citizens of these United States and our government which is enumerated in the Constitution.

The 'Patriot Act' has not aided any anti-terror prosecution, as per its proponents. However, it has been documented (see the Politech list) to have been used for purposes other than anti-terror.

I give the "intelligence" community credit, they have an extremely hard job and they've stopped some bad things from happening. As we all know, they've also made some horrendous mistakes. It's up to citizens and to our elected officials, to give them a structure they can work effectively in.

Every hour an agent or officer spends "investigating" some Quaker because he is a member of a peace organization or some guy who hasn't done anything beyond being Muslim is an hour that can't be spent understanding or finding real threats. Real threats include terrorists but also include things like our epidemic of homegrown of meth addicts.

Anyone who thinks there is no danger of homeland security becoming a giant bureaucracy collecting mounds of "evidence" about law abiding citizens while real threats get lost in the noise or neglected for lack of resources, hasn't paid any attention to how things have worked in this city, state and country in the past.

B!X posted,
"""Allow me to jump in. Let's take a look at the September 5, 2002, overview published by the Associated Press.

Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.
Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.
Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.""

B!X
AP AP AP May May May
Who wrote that overview?
Where's the beef? Where is the claim against library lurking feds?
Where is the case where no search warrant was ever obtained?
And "encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests". That's a hoot. Oregon bureaucrats wrote the book on that one.
Oh there I go again suggesting you look in your own back yard.
Really folks, given the lengthy chatter on this topic you would think one could find many specific cases of of traqmpled rights mentioned.
But I can't even get a source for B!X overview of mays.

Steve, you complain that Bix only points out what the Patriot Act "may" allow government to do without pointing out what bad things have actually happened.

That's a valid complaint - most of the time. Fine for health care legislation, federal pork barrel spending, educational policy, and many other things that can easily be corrected in future legislation.

But, Bix has already addressed your complaint - and described why laws that impinge civil liberties are different. As Bix points out, "may" is bad enough. Simply trusting the goverment to do the right thing isn't enough.

Bix wrote, The problem with much of the pro-Act rhetoric is that it amounts to reporting that one or another representative of law enforcement has said either (1) that the Act does not enable potential abuses or (2) they would never take advantage of any possibility for abuse. That's not how it's supposed to work. Trust the law, not the men.

Look at it this way, Steve. If your sworn, mortal enemy suddenly became the Special Agent In Charge of the Portland FBI, would you trust him to use the Patriot Act wisely and judiciously?

It's not about what one particular agent or administration is doing with the law right now - the law is permanent; it's about what could happen years from now.

Steve, I'm stalling because I'm wondering if I can get you to do any research on the subject at all.

I'll give you your sources eventually, but in the meantime -- because I know where the sources are -- I'm entertaining myself by watching you demonstrate that you've listened to no sources other than the Feds on this topic.

It would take you mere minutes via Google to find the reports regarding libraries -- except you probably won't believe them because they are anonymous. But why are they anonymous? Because the PATRIOT Act threatens librarians with criminal penalties if they even reveal that the Act has been used against their library.

It would take you mere minutes to find reports of "sneak and peak" searches. If you add the name Brandon Mayfield to your search terms, it might take even less time.

So I've tipped you on what to look for. Will you look for it? Or has Mathews convinced you not to look for evidence that counters what he's told you?

It seems that some people appreciate the demise of the Bill of Rights and overall the US Constitution based on some of the "powers and the interpretations of these powers" that the Patriot Act allows the government and its agencies.
If so, what is this coming too—to live and endure in an autocratic authoritarian country? Did not the predecessors of these Republicans defeat the autocratic authoritarian evil empire-USSR-in the 1980’s; too now justify their own 20 years later?

Steve Schopp,
You're tilting at windmills. I won't get into all the fine points b!x makes, but I will point out that the sarcasm about the "may" language is misguided. "May" is being used as a term of legal art (meaning the activity is allowed but optional), in contradistinction to "shall" (where the activity is not optional).

In this case, "may" is not as innocuous as you wish it to be.

And if I may indulge a personal jab, you've shown up to an intellectual gunfight armed only with blanks. Please do research.

If you're not engaged in any activity that could even be suspected of terrorism, no need to worry, right? Wrong. According to a Washington Post report, the Government Accounting Office has found that the majority of people prosecuted under new antiterrorism security measures were being pursued for reasons unrelated to terrorism, including credit card fraud and drug violations. "Many of [the] terrorism powers were actually being asked for as a way of increasing the government's authority in other areas," Tim Edgar of the ACLU said in the report."

"the majority of people prosecuted under new antiterrorism security measures were being pursued for reasons unrelated to terrorism"

So what. Nothing new here. It's like getting american ganster murderers for tax evasion.

You're now approaching a level which suggests it's not worth the effort to do your rsearch for you. Everyone is subject to tax laws. Not everyone is supposed to subject to anti-terror laws which were passed specifically for anti-terrorism purposes. It's an abuse of power, just as we've been discussing.

But apparently even when confronted with the beginnings of the research you won't do for yourself, you still find a way to argue everything's just fine. So I don't think I will bother doing any more of your civic research for you.

The Capone analogy (gangster murderers for tax evasion) isn't parallel to the abuses of the Patriot Act. For one thing, Mayfield hasn't done anything unlawful like Capone did. For another, if Capone was indicted for being Roman Catholic or Italian, that'd be closer to the truth.

Steve is blinker about this topic and you should not try to exercise any more time on an individual that is not going to get the ideas and resources that have be developed and discoursed here on this thread.

Yes Aaron and by all means b!x don't answer a simple question either.
I've devoured enough ACLU fan club web site posts although I still visit.
I'll ask again though, who wrote this b!x post?
The original link no longer works.
Granted I could likely search the news archive and find it but what petty reason do you have for not providing the original with your post?
And now ehen someone asks for it, why play games?
You posted this. Where's the Original piece it appeared in and who wrote it?

b!x post
September 5, 2002, overview published by the Associated Press.

Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.
Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.
Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

It wasn't part of another piece. It was published just as it is. The copy maintained by Truthout is verbatim from its original appearance.

And at least until you yourself ever bother to respond to what's been asked of you, I'm not going to cotinue trying to answer any of your questions, because when I do, you ignore the realities they reveal in favor of your blinders.

Or put another way: People here have made a good-faith effort to present you with supporting evidence for their positions. You haven't, and you also haven't answered some fairly pointed questions which would reveal whether or not you're even persuadable with fact.

For any of us to continue down that path would require a level of masochism that I, at least, don't happen to possess.

Kari says,
"Steve, I'll ask my question again...
If your sworn, mortal enemy suddenly became the Special Agent In Charge of the Portland FBI, would you trust him to use the Patriot Act wisely and judiciously?"

No I would not trust Vera Katz to do so. That's why she should not have top secret clearance as Randy believes.

That shot aside, your collective distribution of stuff just does not make the claims true.

The Rubik's Cube story, which you've milked for all it's worth is as meaningless as it was when originally reported and debunked.

The library pandamonium is just that.

And too bad so many progressives are more concerned about our own law enforcment fightin terrorism that children visiting porn sites in our libraries.

The holding of americans indefinetly without charge is the deliberate stretching of circumstances involving the detaining of enemy combatants.

The Brandon Mayfield story has also been milked to death.

I have listened to a number of progressives tout that all of our enemny combatants should have the full luxury of our entire judicial system.
Each with a Johnny Cockran with all the trimmings.

No, I don't see the Patriot Act as the ACLU does.

But I don't see the Boy Scouts, the Pledge of Allegiance, Christmas or much else as they do either.

To answer your question. If I did see the Patriot Act as you and the ACLU do, no I would not trust my mortal enemy to implement it.

Would I see it your way if only I "researched" with ACLU web site links to discover what the networks are concealing from us?
No. becasue just as I visit BlueOregon I do visit other progressive sources.

I am convinced you are simply wrong headed, way to sensitive, hate to be challenged, condemn those who critiize you, hypocritical and refuse to answer straight questions.

I still like chatting though.

I just wish you would spend more time on Oregon agencies, programs and services.

Steve, I asked... "If your sworn, mortal enemy suddenly became the Special Agent In Charge of the Portland FBI, would you trust him to use the Patriot Act wisely and judiciously?"

And you answered, "No I would not trust Vera Katz to do so."

And so there you have it.

So, you must agree with me and Bix: Trust the law, not the man. If you can't trust the people who would use the law, the law is a bad law.

You cannot predicate your support for the law on the assumption that George W. Bush will be president forever. Eventually (someday, someday) we crazy liberal pinko hippies will get hold of the government - and use the Patriot Act in ways that sicken you.

Kari Kari Kari,
I said I would not trust Vera Katz. Just as I did not trust her with education.

What is God's green earth do you think can be done to the Patriot Act to make it politician proof?
If your imagined tweaking, (abolishing is what you really want) of the Patriot Act can do so then why hasn't many of out other laws covering a broad range of societal issues been politico proofed?

Get real.

The Patriot Act is a solid tool or weapon. Just as is a simple gun.
In the wrong hands it can do more harm than good.

That's why Randy Leonard is so out of his mind with his demand that "top secret" clearance be given to those who do not need to have it for any reason.

B!X and Aaron,
You may want to consider today's editorial and send Mr. Caldwell a message to do some reasearch.
Apparently the editorial board doesn't go where you go. Or maybe you don't make sense.

Nice to see the O on the side of common sense.

Especially when in this case it is so abundantly obvious.

Unfortunately some of you have gleaned more from the Rubiks Cude story than the Portland Seven.

"So, you must agree with me and Bix: Trust the law, not the man. If you can't trust the people who would use the law, the law is a bad law."

I wholeheartedly agree. Can we all begin applying this across the board from now on?

I'll march in the streets to protest the JTTF just as soon as a majority of "progressive voters" suddenly demand that we get rid of the PDC, Dept. of Economic Dev., the OLCC, the Oregon Health Plan, METRO, CIM/CAM, the Lottery Commission, the State Narcotics Division, etc.

There is evidence of the laws powering those programs/institutions falling into the hands of untrustworthy people, so they must be bad laws. Let's get rid of them.

For the record, I'm leery of the Patriot Act too.

My reluctance has less to do with the Bush Administration than the overall growth of the police industry at all levels. Too many people are employed to protect us from ourselves and they are now an interest group. Unions representing police and corrections workers fight against anything that will decrease their ranks (e.g., drug decriminalization, reducing mandatory minimum sentences, etc.)

When the threat of terrorism subsides (we can hope can't we), the influence of this interest group may become very unhealthy.

In the meantime, terrorist threats are just too big a risk to turn a blind eye and hope everything turns out alright.

So give us an effective "progressive" proposal for preventing terrorist attacks from insular groups of religious extremists already living within our borders that does not compromise your view of civil liberties.

I do belief in the need for co-operation on the security of the country by all levels of law enforcement; but not at the expense of the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.
Yes, I think that the potential actions of the “Portland Seven” were justifiable use of the full extent of the co-operation.
However, I am dismayed at the lack of responsibility of the federal government and its agents why they FUCKED UP MR Mayfield’s life. The local US DA and several other law enforcement officers in Portland and around the country should be fired for the crimes that the leveled against him falsely. This shot 1st and ask question last approach is not the way that the government should take actions against its own citizenry.
Now with the case in NYC, a gang member is being charged for murder with stipulation of acts of a terrorist,Gang member as terrorist, it shows desperation on the DA’s office and the police to encompass the classification of gang related activities as activities of terrorists.

Perhaps Steve is too young to remember the Nixon enemies list (with IRS audits of those on it).

Or J Edgar Hoover and his secret files on MLK and others.

I will never trust a government agent to "do the right thing" when it comes to individual freedoms and liberties. Whether they are D or R.

Call me a lefty or card-carrying member (which I am -- and more of you should be) -- but I would rather risk one freed "terrorist" than have all of us open to sneak and peek.

Can anyone point to any foiled "terrorist plot" as a result of Patriot Act? More importantly, can anyone point to ANY credible and valuable evidence @ terrorism that has come from the -- what is it now -- 2.8 years incarcerations at Gitmo from the so-called enemy combatants?

Steve can minimize the "unfortunate Brandon Mayfield" incident, but the documented bumbling of the FBI in that case did more to cement my "don't trust the government" feelings about the Patriot Act than any of the dozens of well-reasoned arguments against it.

Who was it that said "Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty in exchange for security will soon have neither"?

Note 1. This sentence was much used in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of Franklin's “Historical Review,” 1759, appearing also in the body of the work.—Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413.

The Oregonian's editorial today "United we (should) stand" just about did me in. I wasn't sure what I was going to blog about after I was done with my work today, but when I read the editorial I had my material, for sure!

Randy S
"""Perhaps Steve is too young to remember the Nixon enemies list (with IRS audits of those on it)"""
And
"""Steve can minimize the "unfortunate Brandon Mayfield" incident, but the documented bumbling of the FBI in that case did more to cement my "don't trust the government" feelings about the Patriot Act than any of the dozens of well-reasoned arguments against it"""

Randy,
I am 50.

On these issues, I think you have a percetion problem.
The Nixon case was deliberate abuse of power and the FBI Mayfiled case was human error. Yet you apparently give the same weight to both.
To me that signals something else at work here.
If you can't differentiate btween the two then perhaps it is your own judgment you should question.
The Mayfield case and rubiks cube story have inflated to the monsterous level they are not.
And to then use them to negate "dozens of well reasoned arguements" demonstrates a desire to have them represent more evil than they actually do.

Morphing things out of context and perspectivemay serve your bias well but it don't pass the smell test. Not even at the O.

Read this three or four times and figure out for yourself if the Rubiks Cube story is really what BlueOregon seemingly wants it to be.

It is certainly easy to criticize the agents and feds on some wasting time or isn't there something better to do angle. But to inflate it and use it as evidence that the Patriot Act and Homeland Security should be feared is preposterous.

Homeland Security, which includes Customs, routinely blocks shipments of products from overseas that violate intellectual property rights, such as patents, copyrights and trademarks.

Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said agents went to Pufferbelly based on a trademark infringement complaint filed in the agency's intellectual property rights center in Washington, D.C.

Kice also said Homeland Security officials routinely investigate such complaints and follow up if they determine they are valid.

"One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications," she said.

Top FBI fingerprint examiners gave in to peer pressure when they rushed to link an Oregon lawyer to a terrorist attack in Madrid this year, according to a panel of forensic experts convened to explain the highest-profile mistake in the history of modern fingerprint comparison.

The finding contradicts the initial explanation given by the FBI, which had blamed the quality of a digital fingerprint image sent by Spanish police in the wake of the March 11 train bombings that killed 191 people.

...

In laying out a timeline of the Mayfield fiasco, the report shows how the FBI's Latent Print Unit rushed to conclude that Mayfield's prints matched the print found at the crime scene.

In other words, once this initial print search kicked back, amongst a total of 20 different people -- the name of a Muslim laywer living in the Portland area, all other possibilities were squashed at the FBI, and their certainty that this Muslim lawyer from the Portland area obviously must be involved trumped both the facts and normal investigative procedure.

That's not just human error. It's human bias, which then went on to take advantage of PATRIOT Act powers such as sneak-and-peek searches to target and put into custody an innocent man.

To Republicans in Congress and in state capitals across the country: It's time to refuse the NRA's support and their money. And donations received in the past should be donated to organizations supporting the survivors of gun violence.